Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To examine Mary Parker Follett's writings with respect to organizational justice and highlight insights that can advance contemporary organizational justice theory as well as help justice scholars effectively address challenges currently facing the field. Design/methodology/approach By comparing and contrasting Follett's writings with contemporary research, the author argues that Follett provides a number of insights that can advance contemporary justice theory and research. Discusses ways in which the field can capitalize on these insights. Findings Follett foreshadowed a number of important justice issues that have subsequently captured the attention of contemporary justice scholars. More importantly, her process‐oriented perspective suggests a number of research avenues that have yet to be fully explored including emotionality of injustice, integrative unity, and circular responses. In order to take advantage of Follett's insights, however, contemporary justice researchers may need to re‐examine current assumptions about: the nature of organizational justice; the way that it should be studied; and the relationship between theory and practice. Originality/value This paper is the first to examine Follett's writings in the context of organizational justice. Although the field of organizational justice has not yet recognized Follett's work, her writings deal both explicitly and implicitly with the concept of justice in considerable depth. Not only does Follett foreshadow contemporary research, but her writings also provide alternative avenues for theory development and research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it